Opinions for new FP system?

Comments

I'm guessing They'll start selling coins then on the Xbox/PS marketplace and make them ridiculously expensive

If FPs were banned due to the gambling side of things then the only way they could sell coins would be if packs weren't allowed to be bought with coins as it would theoretically be the same thing.

Also if they were selling coins they would have to have them reasonably priced or the media would crucify them. Same goes with if they ever decided to just sell players. I've seen loads of people say on here before if they ban FPs that EA will just sell players for extortionate prices but again they would have to be very careful as it could be a PR nightmare.

I get what you're saying, EA will already have stuff ready no doubt, they might end up just giving packs as rewards, and when/if they sell coins that would only to be to buy players, it's like GTA money, they aren't cheap, I'd assume it would be something like that, but who knows🤷🏼‍♂️

FUT wouldn't be near as popular if they went full on pay to win. They get away with now, because there is a transfer market and you can trade your way to a stacked team. If the only way to get a stacked team was from buying coins, the majority wouldn't play the mode. Plus if that bill gets passed in America, they won't be allowed to use any pay to win mechanics.

I'm guessing They'll start selling coins then on the Xbox/PS marketplace and make them ridiculously expensive

If FPs were banned due to the gambling side of things then the only way they could sell coins would be if packs weren't allowed to be bought with coins as it would theoretically be the same thing.

Also if they were selling coins they would have to have them reasonably priced or the media would crucify them. Same goes with if they ever decided to just sell players. I've seen loads of people say on here before if they ban FPs that EA will just sell players for extortionate prices but again they would have to be very careful as it could be a PR nightmare.

They would absolutely be crucified indeed even the very top player in the game even charging £10-£20 there would be a major outcry as that is expensive on top of £60 for the game
the media would be all over that and would really put the company into scrutiny from both fifa and government bodies
Maybe this is what needs to happen to get their shady and barely legal business practices out in the open

For the player - ditch FP points, ditch packs, ditch In form and special player, ditch icons and SBCs..... Pay up front for the game, have the starting database all year (with realistic pace and stamina ffs) and work towards a known goal(rather than the constantly shifting ones we have now).

For EA - charge more, bring out more special players and SBCs, drop the pack weight even further.

In fact, the best way, would be a subscription - £10 to £15 a month or so (given £60 for the stock game now, even £10 gives EA £120 per game). No special players or SCS etc - BUT floating player stats.

So If a player has a good week - his stats go up a bit. If he has a bad week they go down. If he doesnt play his tech stats stay the same but stamina/pace go down (as hes not match fit).

Which players are really good will change every week - so the market will be fine, but no stupid 99 stamina, 99 pace, 99 strength bullcrap. It will make having a squad - not just a team, or even better a pool of players to bring into that squad really worthwhile.

They wouldnt need a new game every year, just patches if gameplay changes slightly or a new feature is introduced. Young players would develop - so picking up an 18 year old and holding him for a year or 2 may pay off. Older stars drop off over time.

It would be a completely evolving game, squads mean something, prices mean something, no "meta"players as it all depends on if they play and how they perform every week.

Im not a an of subscription models in general - but Id go for one based on that criterea. It would have the added benefit (to us) of EA having to get online gameplay working correctly. If its laggy/full of bugs etc people will just cancel the sub.

In fact, the best way, would be a subscription - £10 to £15 a month or so (given £60 for the stock game now, even £10 gives EA £120 per game). No special players or SCS etc - BUT floating player stats.

So If a player has a good week - his stats go up a bit. If he has a bad week they go down. If he doesnt play his tech stats stay the same but stamina/pace go down (as hes not match fit).

Which players are really good will change every week - so the market will be fine, but no stupid 99 stamina, 99 pace, 99 strength bullcrap. It will make having a squad - not just a team, or even better a pool of players to bring into that squad really worthwhile.

They wouldnt need a new game every year, just patches if gameplay changes slightly or a new feature is introduced. Young players would develop - so picking up an 18 year old and holding him for a year or 2 may pay off. Older stars drop off over time.

It would be a completely evolving game, squads mean something, prices mean something, no "meta"players as it all depends on if they play and how they perform every week.

Im not a an of subscription models in general - but Id go for one based on that criterea. It would have the added benefit (to us) of EA having to get online gameplay working correctly. If its laggy/full of bugs etc people will just cancel the sub.

In fact, the best way, would be a subscription - £10 to £15 a month or so (given £60 for the stock game now, even £10 gives EA £120 per game). No special players or SCS etc - BUT floating player stats.

So If a player has a good week - his stats go up a bit. If he has a bad week they go down. If he doesnt play his tech stats stay the same but stamina/pace go down (as hes not match fit).

Which players are really good will change every week - so the market will be fine, but no stupid 99 stamina, 99 pace, 99 strength bullcrap. It will make having a squad - not just a team, or even better a pool of players to bring into that squad really worthwhile.

They wouldnt need a new game every year, just patches if gameplay changes slightly or a new feature is introduced. Young players would develop - so picking up an 18 year old and holding him for a year or 2 may pay off. Older stars drop off over time.

It would be a completely evolving game, squads mean something, prices mean something, no "meta"players as it all depends on if they play and how they perform every week.

Im not a an of subscription models in general - but Id go for one based on that criterea. It would have the added benefit (to us) of EA having to get online gameplay working correctly. If its laggy/full of bugs etc people will just cancel the sub.